Aims

To systematically review qualitative studies of patients with distal tibia or ankle fracture, and explore their experience of injury and recovery.

Introduction. The Z or “scarf” osteotomy was first described by Meyer in 1926 and then by Burutaran in 1976. It was later popularised by Weil in the USA and Barouk in Europe in the 1990's and is now an accepted technique that forms part of a surgeons' armamentarium. The theory of Diffusion of Innovations was described by Rogers in 1962 to explain how novel ideas are accepted into practice across different industries, including medicine. It has never previously been used to study the adoption of ideas in foot and ankle surgery. Methods. This paper uses publication volume as a surrogate marker for adoption, as described previously by the authors. Briefly, a systematic review of the literature was carried out. MESH headings included ‘Hallux Valgus’, and ‘osteotomy’ or ‘SCARF’ or ‘Z osteotomy’ or ‘bunionectomy’. 2818 publications were identified and the abstracts were reviewed excluding 2699 publications for non-relevance. The data was analysed by year of publication, country of origin, as well as for level of evidence. Results. There were 120 publications relating to SCARF osteotomy, which when plotted on a graph produced an s shaped curve. 58% of publications came from Europe and 38% from the USA. There was only a single level 1 paper published in 2008. Discussion. This study confirms that publication volume is a surrogate marker for adoption and that SCARF osteotomy became adopted by the late 2000's as indicated by the plateau on an s-shaped curve. Post market surveillance has led to a further rise in recent publications indicating that certain issues still need resolving before the laggards adopt this technique. Despite SCARF having been around for more than 80 years, very little high level evidence has been published of its effectiveness. Recommendations are made as to how future innovations should be introduced in foot and ankle surgery

Patient reported outcomes and satisfaction as a measure of service quality is becoming an increasingly important tool in local service assessment as well as a quality indicator within commissioning frameworks. We analyse the introduction of SCP led MDT facilitated patient group meetings addressing the education and preparation of patients listed for ankle and hindfoot surgery at WSH HYPOTHESIS- To identify the outcome benefits to patients from this type of quality initiative. This has been previously demonstrated in other specialities in the trust such as hip and knee replacement resulting in mandatory attendance as part of the care pathway. Feedback was gathered via a patient questionnaire from 60 patients invited to meetings over an 18 month period. Two groups of patients who have undergone hindfoot/ankle surgery at WSH were compared. Group 1 attended a 1 hour MDT meeting preoperatively designed to educate the patient on all aspects of their surgery from pre assessment through to post operative management. Group 2 did not attend any such meeting whether invited or not. Results. Group 1 found the meetings beneficial in preparing them for surgery and improved their knowledge of disease, treatment options and recovery. Group 2 felt less prepared with less knowledge of post op limitations, and available support. No significant difference in length of stay was observed. Recommendations. Additional to their consultant examination, patients undergoing major foot surgery benefit from receiving additional information provided by a mixed group of professionals involved in their care. Physiotherapists and occupational therapists as well as volunteer post operative patients at these meetings provided valuable advice and instruction in preparing for and recovering from this type of surgery

Aims

A pilon fracture is a severe ankle joint injury caused by high-energy trauma, typically affecting men of working age. Although relatively uncommon (5% to 7% of all tibial fractures), this injury causes among the worst functional and health outcomes of any skeletal injury, with a high risk of serious complications and long-term disability, and with devastating consequences on patients’ quality of life and financial prospects. Robust evidence to guide treatment is currently lacking. This study aims to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of two surgical interventions that are most commonly used to treat pilon fractures.

Clinicians are often asked by patients, “When can I drive again?” after lower limb injury or surgery. This question is difficult to answer in the absence of any guidelines. This review aims to collate the currently available evidence and discuss the factors that influence the decision to allow a patient to return to driving. Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, and EMBASE were searched using the following terms: ‘brake reaction time’, ‘brake response time’, ‘braking force’, ‘brake pedal force’, ‘resume driving’, ‘rate of application of force’, ‘driving after injury’, ‘joint replacement and driving’, and ‘fracture and driving’. Of the relevant literature identified, most studies used the brake reaction time and total brake time as the outcome measures. Varying recovery periods were proposed based on the type and severity of injury or surgery. Surveys of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, the Police, insurance companies in the United Kingdom and Orthopaedic Surgeons offered a variety of opinions.

There is currently insufficient evidence for any authoritative body to determine fitness to drive. The lack of guidance could result in patients being withheld from driving for longer than is necessary, or returning to driving while still unsafe.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:290–4.